Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Terrorism; death] Boko Haram continues its campaign of terror in western Africa: "Boko Haram fighters have shot or burned to death about 90 civilians and wounded 500 in ongoing fighting in a border town near Nigeria, officials in Cameroon have said. Some 800 Islamic extremists attacking the town of Fotokol 'burned churches, mosques and villages and slaughtered youth who resisted joining them to fight Cameroonian forces,' the information minister, Issa Tchiroma Bakari, said on Thursday. The Nigerian insurgents also looted livestock and food in the fighting that began on Wednesday. Boko Haram has been using civilians as shields, making it difficult to confront them." I am just aghast at the scope of the cruelty.
[CN: War] Meanwhile in Ukraine: Secretary of State John Kerry is in Ukraine to meet with Ukrainian President Petro Poreshenko, and: "The leaders of Germany and France announced a new peace plan for Ukraine on Thursday, planning to fly together to Kiev and Moscow with a proposal to resolve the conflict that could be 'acceptable to all.' The coordinated trip by Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Francois Hollande comes as rebels advanced on a railway hub held by Ukrainian troops after launching an offensive that scuppered a five-month-old ceasefire." Fingers crossed.
[CN: War on agency. NB: Not only women need access to abortion.] This is so fucking gross: "Under a proposed bill advancing in the Missouri legislature, women would be required to watch an anti-choice video created by the state department before they're permitted to proceed with an abortion. House Bill 124 is designed to dissuade women from choosing to end a pregnancy. The video would include information about alleged abortion risks—'including, but not limited to, infection, hemorrhage, cervical tear or uterine perforation, harm to subsequent pregnancies or the ability to carry a subsequent child to term, and possible adverse psychological effects'—as well as alternatives to abortion. The measure, which was approved by a legislative committee this week, comes on top of several restrictions that are already in place for women seeking abortion services in the state. Currently, if a pregnant person wants to have an abortion in Missouri, they have to attend an in-person counseling session that includes similar information about abortion risks. Then, they have to wait a full 72 hours before they can return to the state's only abortion clinic to have the procedure performed." Once again, pregnant people are being treated like stupid children who can't make good decisions for themselves. Meanwhile: I love the implication that there are no risks during pregnancy and birth. Whooooops.
Heads-up, if your insurance is through Anthem: "Health insurance giant Anthem Inc. said late Wednesday that hackers had breached its computer system and the personal information of tens of millions of customers and employees was possibly at risk. The attack on the nation's second-largest health insurer could be one of the largest data breaches in the healthcare industry, experts said. Anthem said hackers infiltrated a database containing records on as many as 80 million people." Fuck.
NBC Anchor Brian Williams apologized last night for having claimed, for years, that he was in a helicopter which was hit by a RPG. He clarified that he was actually in a helicopter following the one that got hit, and said he just got it mixed up in his memory. I don't really understand how you can misremember something that significant, but I've never been in a warzone. Of course, he was telling the story right once upon a time, so I'm still not sure how he just got mixed up oopsy-daisy somewhere along the way. Side-eye.
Fox Host Steve Doocy is a genius, and his pop culture segments are always brilliant. This one is no exception: Films like Frozen are emasculating American men. "Doocy suggested Hollywood is 'empowering women by turning our men into fools and villains' during an interview with the head of a conservative activist group on Wednesday morning." Goddamned feminists! Who are definitely the ones running the film industry. Not a bunch of conservative old men.
[CN: Homophobia; misogyny] John Legend continues to be a good egg. (Note: I think there's some truth to the argument that boycotts hurt employees, but I nonetheless commend Legend for continuing to take a very public stance in favor of feminism and LGBTQIA equality.)
[CN: Imminent death] There are reports that Bobbi Kristina Brown's family are now gathering to say goodbye. How profoundly sad.
[CN: Coercion] There was some concern that Harper Lee was being coerced, or just wholly misrepresented without her knowledge, in the release of her second novel. Lee has issued a statement saying that's not accurate, but of course if she is being manipulated or misrepresented, how do we know it's her authentic statement? Shit.
In cool news: "NASA's New Horizons has returned its first images of Pluto and its largest moon, Charon, since the mission entered into the countdown phase of its historic mission. Taken at a distance of 126 million miles (200 million km), it will pale in comparison to the images expected over the coming months." CAN'T WAIT!!!
ME-WOW: "Scotland's first cat cafe, Maison de Moggy, opened this month." Neat!
In the News
How Dare You Be Fat and Happy?
[Content Note: Fat hatred.]
Being fat and happy, or content, is something about which I've been writing for a very long time. It's a subject that interests me a lot, for what I'm guessing are obvious reasons.
I just read this piece by by Jes, the Militant Baker, on "Why People Hate Tess Munster (and Other Happy Fat People)," and it's so, so right on.
Fat people aren't supposed to be inspirational figures. We're supposed to be cautionary tales. And hoo boy are there a lot of people who take it personally when we refuse to fill that role.
A lot of people think we should be miserable, and make it their mission to make us so. Because that's easier than the hard work of finding your own confidence and contentment.
Choosing to be fat has to be okay—and so does choosing to be fat and happy.
[Related Reading: Fatsronauts 101: Permission to Live.]
Twitter Admits Twitter Stinks at Stopping Abuse
[Content Note: Abuse; misogynoir; misogynist terrorism.]
Yesterday, The Verge published an internal memo it had obtained authored by Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, in which he acknowledges that the social media site hasn't done nearly enough to combat abuse on its platform:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Dick Costolo wrote:Later, in another memo, he added: "So now we're going to fix it, and I'm going to take full responsibility for making sure that the people working night and day on this have the resources they need to address the issue, that there are clear lines of responsibility and accountability, and that we don't equivocate in our decisions and choices."
We suck at dealing with abuse and trolls on the platform and we've sucked at it for years. It's no secret and the rest of the world talks about it every day. We lose core user after core user by not addressing simple trolling issues that they face every day.
I'm frankly ashamed of how poorly we've dealt with this issue during my tenure as CEO. It's absurd. There's no excuse for it. I take full responsibility for not being more aggressive on this front. It's nobody else's fault but mine, and it's embarrassing.
We're going to start kicking these people off right and left and making sure that when they issue their ridiculous attacks, nobody hears them.
Everybody on the leadership team knows this is vital.
1. No shit.
2. Frankly, I'd rather that Costolo were angry about the abuse heaped upon many of Twitter's users than he was embarrassed by it. The fact that he's "ashamed" and "embarrassed," rather than angry and contemptuous; the fact that that he's more focused on the fact that people talk about their failure than he is on the people who are harmed by their failure, gives some insight into why Twitter has failed for as long and as catastrophically as it has. Costolo clearly isn't as worried about people getting hurt as he is people talking about people getting hurt, and when you're more worried about your reputation being harmed than people being harmed, well, that's reflected in your shitty priorities.
3. It's interesting that in a communication (which was clearly designed to be leaked), there is no discussion at all, not even a passing reference, to the disproportionate abuse heaped on women, and black women in particular. "Core users." But which core users? If the man who notes it's his fault can't even bring himself to talk about who is being targeted and why, then I have little expectation that the solution will work for the people being most viciously targeted.
4. Mr. Costolo: These attacks are not "ridiculous." They are a often part of a coordinated, orchestrated, targeted campaign. Many of us who get a shit-ton of abuse on Twitter are named on a circulated list. We know this. Surely you know this.
Words matter. No one knows this more than a CEO who writes perfectly-designed-to-be-leaked memos. And I'm pretty concerned about the words I'm reading. As someone who would like it very much indeed if Twitter took this shit seriously.
Open Thread
Hosted by a flamingo.
I'm still feeling rough today, but I'll try to get a few things done today. Thanks for your patience.
Blog Note
I have taken another turn back for the worse with this unbelievable zombie flu. I spent another night with the hot-cold shivers, and I've again got a fever and congestion and painfully swollen glands. So I'm going back to bed, because enormous amounts of sleep is the only thing that seems to help.
Hopefully, I'll be feeling a bit better again tomorrow. I'll keep you posted.
This is a real fucking drag.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker kittenboots: "What in life consistently brightens your day?"
My friends and the furry residents. ♥
The Invisible Hand of the Market Is Covered in Pee
[Content Note: Germs and bacteria.]
The Republicans really hate science. And not being sick.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) argued this week that restaurants should be able to "opt out" of health department regulations that require employees to wash their hands after using the bathroom.I don't even know, y'all.
..."I was having this discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like maybe you should allow businesses to opt out," Tillis recalled. "Let an industry or business opt out as long as they indicate through proper disclosure, through advertising, through employment, literature, whatever else. There’s this level of regulations that maybe they're on the books, but maybe you can make a market-based decision as to whether or not they should apply to you."
..."I don't have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as the post a sign that says 'We don't require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.' The market will take care of that."
I mean, the thing is, we already know what happens when deregulation creates a two-tiered market the primary division of which centers around cleanliness and health: People who can afford it get the good stuff, and people who can't get the crap. It's true whether we're talking about foodservice or medical care or clean drinking water.
Senator Tillis wants to pretend that "the market" drives substandard foodservice (or any industry) out of business altogether, but that's not how it works. What happens is that the places who do hang a "we wash our hands!" sign on the door (or whatever more realistic equivalent than Tillis' grody example) get to charge a premium, and the places that don't get to stay in business, and suddenly they're the only place poor people can afford anymore.
Senator Tillis knows this. He just doesn't care.
Mmm Cookies
I'm just feeling really grateful today for all the men who
so generously explain to women how to do feminism right.
Just kidding.
Daily Dose of Cute
Sophs ain't having it.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Anti-vaccination rhetoric; disablism; eliminationism.]
"I know my kids best. I know what morals and values are right for my children. I think we should not have an oppressive state telling us what to do."—Congressman Sean Duffy (R-WI), the latest Republican to speak out against vaccine mandates.
This week started with a weekend piece in the New York Times about parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, which contained passages such as this one:
Missy Foster, 43, said she had not vaccinated her daughter, Tully, who is now 18 months old, against measles because of concern that the M.M.R. vaccine — which stands for measles, mumps and rubella, or German measles — might be associated with autism.Rank disablism, rooted in an accountable belief in a thoroughly discredited study.
"It's the worst shot," she said, with tears in her eyes. "Do you want to wake up one morning and the light is gone from her eyes with autism or something?"
And passages like this:
After researching the issue and reading information from a national anti-vaccine group, Ms. McDonald said she and her husband, a chiropractor, decided to raise their four children without vaccines. She said they ate well and had never been to the doctor, and she insisted that her daughter was healthier than many classmates. But when the school sent her home with a letter, Ms. McDonald's daughter was so concerned about missing two weeks of Advanced Placement classes that she suggested simply getting a measles inoculation.So, not vaccinating one's children is a principled choice, but if one of those children wants the vaccine, their choice is not valid and not respected. Gross hypocrisy.
"I said, 'No, absolutely not,'" Ms. McDonald said. "I said, 'I'd rather you miss an entire semester than you get the shot.'"
And passages like this:
In San Geronimo, Calif., a mostly rural community of rolling hills and oak trees about 30 miles north of San Francisco, 40 percent of the students walking into Lagunitas Elementary School have not been inoculated against measles, according to the school's figures. Twenty-five percent have not been vaccinated for polio.That is shocking. And the school superintendent explained the alarming indifference to vaccinations this way: "A lot of people here have personal beliefs that are faith based."
The faith, Mr. Carroll said, is not so much religious as it is a belief that "they raise their children in a natural, organic environment" and are suspicious of pharmaceutical companies and big business.I mean.
I understand religious objections to vaccinations. (And for most of my life, the small percentage of people who chose not to vaccinate for religious reasons did not affect "the herd.") But these are not religious beliefs:
* Believing, based on a discredited study by an unethical former doctor, that vaccinations cause autism.
* Believing that your child having autism makes them less than fully human.
* Believing that your parenting right is more important than your child's agency.
* Believing that a "natural, organic environment" exists in isolation from measles. Which, by the way, are both natural and organic.
* Believing that your right to not inoculate against infectious diseases is more important than the social contract to eradicate infectious diseases, which is most important for people made most vulnerable by compromised immune systems or poverty.
I will flatly admit that my contempt for not vaccinating is utterly selfish. I have an autoimmune disorder; I am vaccinated but thus still at risk.
Like millions of other people, including Dr. Tim Jacks' daughter Maggie, who has acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Or babies who are too young to be vaccinated. Or adults fighting or living with various diseases.
I have now had the flu for a month and counting. I get facial numbness and tics and shakes in reaction to simple infections. I don't want to get measles. Which is, contrary to current narratives, "a highly contagious, serious disease."
That said, I am sympathetic to religious objections, mostly because legitimate religious objections are a very small part of the population.
But you don't want to vaccinate your kid because you want to live an organic life? Or because you don't like the government telling you what you do? Nope. Sorry. That ain't how society works. Not when it comes to infectious disease.
And you don't want to vaccinate your kid because you can't imagine a fate worse than being the parent of a child with autism? Fuck you. Don't risk other people's lives with your bigotry.
I don't think it's any mystery that I am wholly in support of choice, and I am wholly in support of people having control over their healthcare, and I am wholly in support of skepticism, and I am wholly in support of alternative medicine.
But vaccinations aren't about choice, or independence, or unproven science, or alternative medicine. Not really. They're about the social contract, and what citizens owe one another. They're about the most privileged people doing what they can to protect the most vulnerable.
Because it isn't the privileged white kid of wealthy parents who live in a clean, beautiful, rural environment and can afford all the best organic food and are able to access the best healthcare available if that unvaccinated kid gets measles who is the most at risk by people's choice not to inoculate.
It's the poor kid of poor parents who lives in the neighborhood at the ass-end of the waste disposal for the factory that produces the packaging for organic granola bars, who breathes contaminated air and drinks contaminated water and resultingly has a compromised immune system that makes them more likely to contract measles even if they've been vaccinated, and more likely not to have access to cutting edge healthcare if they do, who is the most at risk by people's choice not to inoculate.
We're all in this together. For that kid's life, not for a privileged parent's personal choice.
We don't owe our own health to anyone else, but we absolutely do owe other people's health to them. And being vaccinated is part of that responsibility.
[Commenting Guidelines: As there are varying views on vaccines, please make sure to use "I" language to express those opinions in order to keep this a civil conversation. But please also be aware that disablist shit that dehumanizes people with autism will not be tolerated in this space.]
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: War; death] The fighting continues in Ukraine: "Up to 16 civilians have been killed and dozens more injured in the space of 24 hours in fighting in eastern Ukraine, as the UN warns that the fresh surge in violence is proving 'catastrophic.' ...Civilian casualties have risen sharply in recent weeks amid a rebel offensive. ...UN human rights chief Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said there had been a 'clear breach of international humanitarian law which governs the conduct of armed conflicts.' 'Bus stops and public transport, marketplaces, schools and kindergartens, hospitals and residential areas have become battlegrounds in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine,' he said in a statement. 'Any further escalation will prove catastrophic for the 5.2 million people living in the midst of conflict in eastern Ukraine,' he added. According to the UN, the death toll now exceeds 5,350 people and more than 12,000 other people have been wounded in the fighting." Fuck.
Here's some good news (that Republicans are already endeavoring to ruin): "President Barack Obama's $4 trillion budget proposal includes a major change to the Social Security Act that would allow same-sex couples to receive spousal benefits even if they live in states that don't recognize such unions. Under current law, [same-sex] couples who move from one of the 36 states that permit same-sex marriage to one that does not lose the Social Security benefits [different-sex] couples enjoy. 'Under this proposal, such married couples would have access to these benefits,' according to the budget."
Not that it will do any good for most of the people whose lives were ruined: "Ratings firm Standard & Poor's will pay $1.5 billion to resolve a series of lawsuits over its ratings on mortgage securities that soured in the runup to the 2008 financial crisis, the company said on Tuesday. The settlement comes after more than two years of litigation as S&P fought allegations it issued overly rosy ratings in order to win more business. S&P parent McGraw Hill Financial Inc said it will pay $687.5 million to the U.S. Department of Justice, and $687.5 million to 19 states and the District of Columbia, which had filed similar lawsuits over the ratings. Late Monday, the firm also reached a separate $125 million settlement with public pension fund California Public Employees' Retirement System, which had sued S&P in 2009, claiming its inaccurate ratings caused the firm hundreds of millions of dollars in losses."
Not only did Republican Congressman Aaron Schock have his office decked out like Downton Abbey (whut), but he also accepted the design work free of charge, which could be an ethics violation. Good grief.
I love this stuff: "The big ticket items—the Space Launch System, the Orion capsule, the Commercial Crew program—grabbed the big bucks and the headlines, as NASA unveiled the White House's 2015 budget proposal. But some astronomers and science fans are most excited about the inclusion of a new mission: a trip to Europa, Jupiter's fourth largest moon." I'm pretty excited about that, too!
Harper Lee will publish a second novel: "The novel [titled Go Set a Watchman and rediscovered last July] was completed in the mid-1950s, in the midst of the civil rights movement. It takes place 20 years after To Kill a Mockingbird. Though it's effectively a sequel, Ms. Lee actually wrote Go Set a Watchman first. The 304-page novel takes place in the same fictional town, Maycomb, Ala., and unfolds as Scout Finch, the feisty child heroine of To Kill a Mockingbird, returns to visit her father, Atticus. Ms. Lee said in a statement released by her publisher that her editor at the time was taken with Scout's childhood flashbacks, and told her to write a different novel from Scout's perspective. 'I was a first-time writer, so I did as I was told,' Ms. Lee, 88, a native of Monroeville, Ala., said in the statement." Wow.
Terry Crews, "BIG feminist," is super excited about the new Ghostbusters movie. He's the best! I love him on Brooklyn Nine-Nine soooo much.
This is lovely and terrific: "Keith Anderson, a devoted dad in Ontario, has found a unique way to remember his son Kai's childhood—his right arm is covered in tattoos based on drawings by his son that he has been getting every year since Kai was 5 years old."
Meet Harry the Baby Pygmy Hippo! OMG his toesies! So cute!
On Larry Wilmore's "Obesity in America" Episode
[Content Note: Fat hatred; body policing; shaming.]
Last night, The Nightly Show, Larry Wilmore's successor to The Colbert Report, which premiered a couple of weeks ago, did an episode on "Obesity in America." When it was announced, I was immediately full of the usual dread, for the usual reasons. I wasn't sure I was going to watch it, but I did. And yikes.
The good news was that Wilmore's four-person panel had two fat people on it: Comedian Lavell Crawford and fat activist Marianne Kirby (@therotund). Marianne did a great job, especially pushing back against the idea that concern trolling fat people has anything to do with our health, but Lavell was there to basically play the "I'm fat because I eat so many cookies!" role, which was disappointing.
Still, it was an improvement on most "obesity" panels, which typically include zero fat people, like the ones on Melissa Harris-Perry's show.
Wilmore promised to ask the "big questions" (see what he did there?) about "obesity in America" last night, and while he did ask his panel whether fat is a civil rights issue, and they did briefly touch on the intersectionality of fat and class, the episode was rife with problems, including a number of vicious stereotypes about fat people that largely went unchallenged—like fat is inherently unhealthy, all fat people are fat because they overeat, fat people abuse disability status because they're lazy.
And the "big question" about whether fat is a civil rights issue was never answered. In one breath, Wilmore detailed that fat people face employment discrimination, then wondered if fat is a civil rights issue.
Which is a familiar discordance to any fat activist who tries to engage progressives on the issue of fat discrimination: Many liberal-minded people are willing to concede that, sure, there's demonstrable, legal discrimination against fat people, but insistently resist seeing fat hatred as a civil rights issue.
Because we're all supposed to be able to bootstraps our way out of being fat. Lots of progressives suddenly love bootstraps when it comes to fat people.
And are suddenly very anti-choice.
All of which tends to be justified on the basis of concern for our health, which is, of course, bullshit. It's about the way we look; it's about the fact that we exist at all.
Wilmore opened the episode with these words: "Tonightly: America's obesity rate creeps up to 27.7%. On the plus side, now it's higher than our math scores. A third of Americans are obese?! Well, that's the most depressing thing I've heard since that kid told me he was dead in that Superbowl commercial."
He's depressed by the mere evidence that fat people exist. He's depressed that there are so many of us.
That is considered an okay, an uncontroversial, thing to say about fat people.
Just casual eliminationism: It's depressing that we are alive, and it would be so much less depressing if we weren't.
(Setting aside the fact that many of the people who are classified as "obese" by bullshit BMI measures would almost certainly not be viewed as "depressingly fat" by Larry Wilmore and lots of other people.)
If the fact that fat hatred kills isn't enough to convince someone that fat is a social justice issue, then maybe letting that shit sink in will be: I had to watch a person say, to laughter and applause, that it's depressing to hear that fat people exist in large numbers.
My appearance, my body, my existence is depressing.
Here's a "big question" about fat that I have for Larry Wilmore to answer: How the fuck do you think that's okay?
This is the reality that fat people face in the US: Even people ostensibly sympathetic to the discrimination we face are more inclined to voice that they are depressed about our existence than they are to voice that they're angry about the vast fat hatred that we face every day.
Even people ostensibly sympathetic to us are more likely to suggest we try to change our very bodies, even though that could mean literally killing ourselves in the process, instead of suggesting that people who despise us change their fucking minds.
It is not the responsibility of marginalized people to change themselves to accommodate bigots.
That fat people are routinely admonished to do so should be what depresses you, Larry Wilmore. It sure as shit depresses me.
It Continues to Be a Real Mystery Why Republicans Aren't Connecting with a Majority of Female Voters
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
Above is a screen cap from an interview Senator Rand Paul did with CNBC Anchor Kelly Evans yesterday, during which he actually shushed her, told her to "calm down," and lectured her on how to do her job.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Senator Paul would never do this to a male interviewer. At least not in this "angry dad" tone that he's using with Evans.
2. He's lecturing her on her supposed lack of objectivity, when objectivity is exactly what it's called when a news anchor grills their subject over allegations of impropriety instead of pulling their punches out of deference. He's using the Fox News definition of objectivity, which is "kiss the ass of your Republican guest."
3. Watching him get this fucking agitated with fairly softball questions about his background suggests to me he will implode during a real presidential run. Especially since now every news organization worth their salt knows all they have to do is send out a woman to question him, and he won't be able to contain himself.
An edited down version of the interview is below, followed by the transcript.
Kelly Evans: But I just have to begin by asking: Did you really just say to Laura Ingraham that you think most vaccines in this country should be, quote, 'voluntary'?
Rand Paul: Well, I guess being for freedom would be really unusual. I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.
[edit]
Evans: Senator, I'm sure you know that most of the research on this indicates that [tax loopholes allowing companies that have cash overseas to bring it home at a holiday corporate tax rate] actually cost more money over the long term than they save.
Paul: Well, that's incorrect.
Evans: Are you saying your plan will be different?
Paul: [waves his hands] You're, you're, oh ho ho, let's go back again. Your premise and your question is mistaken, okay?
Evans: All right.
[edit]
Paul: Let me finishing saying—hey, let me finish, hey, Kelly.
Evans: I'm sorry, go ahead.
Paul: [puts his finger to his lips and makes shushing noise] Quiet. Calm down a bit here, Kelly.
Evans: [laughs] I'm sorry.
Paul: Let me answer the question.
[edit; at this point Kelly has asked about a Washington Post story that mentioned a potential conflict of interest concerning Paul's ophthalmology group in Kentucky]
Paul: So, you've taken something and you've twisted it— [crosstalk] Well, yeah, you have. [Evans protests while Paul waves his hand around] No, you have.
Evans: —was to create competition, and make it more fair for younger doctors; I'm only asking about the part that they raised issue with, which was the board: They said, look, it's a bunch of his family and friends [crosstalk] just on the conflict of interest point.
Paul: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. And you've taken an interview, and you've made an interview into something where we got no useful information, because you were argumentative, and you started out with so many presuppositions that were incorrect.
[edit]
Evans: Understood. And, Senator, before we let you go, I can tell you're fired up—I apologize, ahh, for the extent to which I'm the reason for that—but what about twenty sixteen?
Paul: Well—
Evans: I mean, is this year, uh, with an eye towards you entering twenty sixteen as a presidential candidate or maybe getting drafted into one of the campaigns?
Paul: Uh, we're thinking about it, and we're looking around the United States and seeing if the message resonates. Part of the problem is that you end up having interviews like this, where the interview's so slanted and full of distortions that you don't get useful information. I think this is what's bad about TV sometimes. So frankly I think if we do this again, you need to try to start out with a little more objectivity going into the interview.
Evans: I will certainly try my best, Senator. We hope you will come back and give us that chance.
This is a real thing in the world.
[Content Note: Misogyny.]
Actual Headline: "Do Dems have a women problem?"
Actual Subhead: "Powerful figures like Clinton and Pelosi may be scaring off good male candidates."
Actual Paragraphs from this Actual Piece of Shit Actually Published by USA Today:
...Democrats do have a gender problem — but it's not in the electorate, but at the party leadership level where two women have assumed dominant positions and have scared off serious male challengers.Wow.
Take Hillary Clinton and Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Both are towering and intimidating figures, who have sucked the oxygen out of the spheres they dominate.
...The one candidate who generates any enthusiasm at all as a challenger to Clinton, is another woman, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has repeatedly disavowed any interest in running.
...But that's a problem for Democrats. True, they have successfully promoted the candidacies of women, championed issues that appealed to women, and generally been rewarded with their support. But the very elevation of these extraordinary women has placed male Democrats in the position of being unwilling to challenge them.
...The advancement and championing of women has been a source of justifiable pride for Democrats since they put Geraldine Ferraro on the ticket as a vice presidential candidate in 1984. But their very success raises the question of whether it has saddled them with the burdens of political deference to women in leadership positions.
I could spend the rest of my day deconstructing this heap of garbage, but instead I'll just say this: No, powerful women are not scaring off good male candidates—because any man scared by strong women isn't a good candidate.
[H/T to Tom Watson.]
Question of the Day
(I have to wrap up a little early today. Nothing serious. I'll see you tomorrow!)
When was the last time an advertisement, whether a television commercial or a print ad or a content-generated ad online, convinced you to buy something?
Quote of the Day
"I can get candy any time, but nothing would replace [my cat Lilly]."—Nine-year-old Jadalynn Haugen, who spent $20 of her birthday money to buy pet resuscitation equipment for Minnesota's Plainview Fire Department.
Kids today. Get ON my lawn!
[H/T to Shaker GoldFishy, who in turn hat tips Bob Collins.]
Daily Dose of Cute
Zelly and Duckie.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
